“Current federal policy”? The Constitution Of The United States Of America. Not “current”-Always.
There is not going to be an end to birthright citizenship and there won’t be any mass deportations. E-verify is likely to happen as part of any immigration bill, same as earned amnesty. The wall might get built, this is obviously a massive waste of money aimed at appeasing morons. Mexico will not pay for a single cent of it and there won’t be any repercussions. Honestly anyone who expects the immigration issue to be solved better get used to accepting something that looks almost exactly like what passed the senate last time, because that is what it is going to look like.
I don’t know. I wonder what would happen if a foreign embassy worker, having given birth in a U.S. hospital, insisted on citizenship rights for her child.
The foreign embassy worker: doesn’t pay taxes and is immune to our laws (diplomatic immunity.)
The illegal immigrant does pay taxes and is not immune to our laws.
You’re mixing two very different cases, treating them as identical.
Okay, but you’ve already agreed that “jurisdiction” involves more than just being here. And immune to our laws is not exactly accurate. Diplomatic immunity just means that we send people back home for violating our laws, we don’t try them and imprison them. It would actually be very easy to simply state that all foreign nationals will be treated the same way: if you break our laws, no trial, we just send you home as persona non grata.
Would it? So if for example the Boston bombers had been, let’s say Syrian nationals, you would suggest to not try them and put them on a plane to Damascus instead?
I’m guessing you’ve never talked to any Gypsies and I suspect many Jews would laugh hysterically at the idea that they were “integrated” into Poland, Hungary, Russia etc.
Beyond that the “Arabs” and “North Africans” not accepted as “real” Frenchmen are “natives” who’ve been living ther for three generations.
To me, the difference between someone who’s lived in a country for three generations or three centuries is nil.
None of what Ivd said is meant to gloss over the U.S. Treatment of minorities.
Grin! If they’re not subject to our jurisdiction, how are we supposed to detain them and deport them? If we can detain and deport them, that proves they are subject to our jurisdiction!
Trump supporters savagely beat homeless undocumented immigrant, because “Donald Trump was right. All these illegals need to be deported.”
Perhaps he could buy them some nice, brown shirts too.
Whenever I here about a wall, I picture something along the lines of the Great Wall of China. Am I the only one who gets this mental picture?
No.
My mental picture is more along the lines of the Berlin Wall.
The Great Wall of China is pretty.
Just had to share this.
It’s a picture of Bobby Jindal with this caption:
Says Republican Bobby Jindal, whose non-citizen parents arrived in the U.S. four months before he was born, and used his birthright citizenship to become Americans, making him an anchor baby.
AFAIU, his parents were legal immigrants - so they had no need to “use his birthright citizenship to become Americans”. If you have any info that they were illegal immigrants, please bring it.
Terr: The story didn’t say they were illegal. They just were not U.S. citizens, and used their baby’s citizenship to obtain citizenship for themselves.
Anchor babies apply to legal immigrants, too.
How? They were legal immigrants. Whether they had a baby or not, they would get citizenship through the same process. Exactly how did they “use their baby’s citizenship”?
Explain how. Once you’re a legal immigrant, you’re in the process (I know, I went through the process) and you will get your citizenship in X years. Whether with a baby or without one.
I, for one, am perfectly willing to absolve Mr. Jindal of any such accusations. That this may vault him into the front ranks of Republican contenders is a prospect I am prepared to face with courage and calm dignity.
After Mr. Trump deports all the illegal immigrants, he will find that his hotel rooms are no longer being cleaned, and his golf courses no longer mowed.
Shock Poll: 59% Back Trump On Deportation of Illegals
The latest IBD/TIPP Poll asked 913 adults coast to coast if they “support or oppose mandatory deportation of illegal immigrants in the U.S.” Not surprisingly, 87% of Trump supporters back the proposal.
What’s surprising is that 59% of the overall public does as well. Mandatory deportation gets majority support in all age groups except 18-24, every income group, among both women and men, at every level of educational achievement, and in rural, urban and suburban regions.
More interesting still is the fact that 64% of independents and 55% of moderates support deportation.
Even among Hispanics, the poll found 40% backed mandatory deportation — although the sample size is too small to make much of that number.
Trump’s other proposals don’t do as well. Just under half the public favors building a wall along the southern border (48%) or an end to automatic citizenship for children born of illegals (46%). But a majority of independents (55%) back building the wall.
Given how the question was asked I"m actually shocked it wasn’t 90%. “Forced deportation” is the law.
You might as well ask people if they favor forced tax collection.
Didn’t stop the Toba, didn’t stop the Mongols, didn’t stop the Manchurians . . . what was that wall built for again?